Again, behind this principle we see a deeper principle of volition. If Jack was going to die anyway, then she wasn’t in control of that. She was choosing to actively save herself, rather than actively choosing to kill him. That analysis could get messy, but then again so is real life. That’s why we have juries.
The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law Chapter 13: I Had No Choice! Necessity pg 18: Volitional or Passive
So the question is whether Jack was going to die anyway. If Jack was a goner, then Jill acted so that only 1 would die instead of 2. If Jack was a goner, then Jill’s choice of evils was this:
Two gravestones
Do nothing, and BOTH die
or
One gravestone
Kill one, so that one lives.
If Jack was going to die anyway, then under the minority (modern) view, by killing him to save herself, Jill did the right thing.
Obvious Question: What if Jack *asked* Jill to cut him down, seeing that his death was a forgone conclusion? That would be the right thing for Jack to do in any state.
It would be her word against… well, basically just her word, I guess. Even so, I don’t think “he asked me to” is an acceptable justification for killing someone as a matter of law.
hmm… Depends, are any of these states that employ the ” modern ” thinking have mountain climbing ranges?
Almost all states that have mountains have mountain climbs. I’ve done it up and down the East Coast
Obvious Question: What if Jack *asked* Jill to cut him down, seeing that his death was a forgone conclusion? That would be the right thing for Jack to do in any state.
It would be her word against… well, basically just her word, I guess. Even so, I don’t think “he asked me to” is an acceptable justification for killing someone as a matter of law.
Yes, you get into assisted suicide at that point. And yes, it’d still be just her word, unless she had a recorder going.